Who is who to "negotiate" about what ?

For any intelligent person, naive realism is hardly naive.
So why avoid it?

I don't want to avoid it...I am asking as if in someone else's shoes ...I am trying to understand the non naive realists...I can't get around their own minds...they are worse then black holes there is no way of getting to try to understand them without getting yourself spaghettified...

PS - I hope you haven't missed the irony in there and here.

For me, it seems appropriate to investigate "non - naive realism" from the point of view of the naive realist.

And, yes, one does feel as if stretched infinitely thinner when contemplating a black hole discussion as between Frank and Fresco. So, after wiping my face and rinsing my mouth, I am generally able to pull myself together.

Even naive realists may have lively disagreements; but they can usually distill the source of contention by examining basic axioms. When you stray from realism, however, the source of contention could be anywhere. You know "it all depends on what your definition of 'is' is".

Not sure how I got mentioned in this, but for the record...I have merely said that the naive realists MAY be correct in their considerations about REALITY.

On the other hand Fresco (Heidegger Lite) MAY be correct.

I certainly do not know.

I tend to favor the Fresco/JL side of this issue over what appears to be the position of the naive realists...and I do not fault Fresco on supposing he and Heidegger may be correct and the naive realists pathetically wrong.But he does not present his opinion and guesses as "suppositions."

He claims he knows the naive realists are all wet...and that all the negotiating blah, blah, blah.

He doesn't!

Whatever you do, Fil...

...do not do any negotiating with Fresco...

...unless you have good use for the snake oil.

I only mentioned you because you and Fresco circle so often

Ya think?

This is a satiric thread precisely focusing on the lack of is-ness from which "we" (whatever that means in Fresco language) are supposed to be negotiating about "not things"...

...moreover Frank realism has nothing to do with the problem of knowing or being able to know...either it is true, or we are not here nor there nor anywhere nor anything. Epistemology has a subject, knowing...it requires something to be know or unknown...kill ontology and you have no problem to talk about. Fresco misses it...same old same old...

...let me clarify it, you yourself must be a REALIST from the moment you accept whatever it is the case it is the case. X is X.
...worse if someone says X is not X then the first thought it should occur to said person is that it cannot even refer to X to state its not X...obvious, in your face, purest, sheer nonsense !

...on the stretching of the naive realist bullshit subject I just will state that anyone that accepts the brain interprets information in a dynamic contextual way, 90% of the world population which is not entirely retarded, is not a naive realist. There is nothing more worth comment.

Fresco position has no merit when it tries to go any further then this. His conception of a dynamic world without states of affairs cannot be explained in any logical way you could possibly try to imagine...it has nothing to stand upon...no matter how many Einstein's you go get to try sell the idea, its **** !

Obviously there can be no changes of any kind without things that can be changed from whatever they ARE at x point in time so they can become something else.

What else can be said ? A child without short attention span can get this argument instantly...and that's what makes it good.

Change requires is-ness should be a pretty straight forward argument to get. When someone misses something as basic as this it immediately gives away the amount of intellectual failure we are dealing with.
Its (lets be honest about it shall we) catastrophic !